Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Wednesday, 28 September 2016

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA WEDNESDAY, 28 SEPTEMBER 2016

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

11:30 a.m.

For Hearing

Shaun Keverall Kaye

State of Tasmania

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before the FULL COURT

11:15 a.m.

For Judgment

Bradley John Chaplin

Sergeant Richard Lane

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Application
Brendan Lee Jones

Court 7, Salamanca Place
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
For Bail Application
Robert Michael Allen

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
In Court as In Chambers
For Application
JJL

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Plea in Mitigation
Luke Rogers

3:00 p.m.
For Sentence
Rickie Graeme Davis

For Bail Application
Kylie Anne Hack

4:15 p.m.
For Sentence
Nicole Lee Sampey

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice TENNENT

Civil Jurisdiction

9:30 a.m.

For Judgment

Aaron Charles McShane

Sergeant Michael Ashwood

LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
11:00am For Hearing
Gregory John Nicholas & Ors v Susan Janet Jones & Ors.

BURNIE

No list for Burnie.

(Note: Initials are used where publication of a person's name is not permitted by law.)

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:

Email subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bradley John Chaplin v Sergeant Richard Lane was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The dispute revolves around an application made by Chaplin against Sergeant Lane. The Full Court presided over by Chief Justice Blow was tasked with resolving the legal issues in this case.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the application made by Chaplin was justified and warranted any form of relief or ruling in his favour. The court had to examine the merits of Chaplin's application and determine if there was sufficient grounds for the court to grant any form of remedy or directive.

The court, after thorough deliberation, found that Chaplin's application did not meet the necessary criteria for any form of judicial intervention. The Full Court, therefore, dismissed the application. The reasoning behind the dismissal was that Chaplin failed to demonstrate that the relief sought would be appropriate or just under the circumstances presented.

As a result of the court's decision, the application made by Chaplin was dismissed, and no further action or remedy was granted in his favour. The court's ruling was based on a comprehensive analysis of the application's merits and the applicable legal standards.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established